Dan and Horace are back to discuss the latest news from Nokia, RIM, HTC and Sony and what they have to do with each other. We touch on the distinction between market and product orientation and meander into the question of what is the value of the enterprise vis-a-vis the product it sells and what management has meant and what it should mean. We even tackle the history (and future) of history.
The phenomenon we call business disruption could benefit from a different name. Although it signifies a disturbance or an interruption in an industry, it's much more than that.
The nominal definition I work with is that disruption is the "transfer of wealth in an industry from dominant incumbents to disadvantaged entrants." It's a convenient definition because it's brief, it puts the emphasis on economic value and because it alludes to a reversal of fortune and the implied extraordinariness.
However, there are several nuances lost and contradictions ignored in this definition. I want to enumerate them here and now:
Although in a disruption there is a transfer of wealth, that wealth is not necessarily conserved. An industry that undergoes a disruption often emerges larger, more productive or more influential. Disruption typically creates net growth.
Although extraordinary and spectacular it is also very commonplace. Disruption is not rare. In fact, it rarely fails to happen. One could even say that if it does fail to happen, it's a symptom of an industry in crisis.
Being so common, it can be seen as a regular occurrence. But if the regularity of disruption can be considered to have a clock cycle, its frequency is increasing.
Disruption in the literal sense implies discomfort, displacement and even destruction. But it's necessary to the health of any economy. The analogy to biology is that death is the most important thing in life.
Although only recently characterized and studied in cases set in the past century, the pattern is evident throughout history.
I've offered examples of these consequences or side-effects of disruption but I'll emphasize once more the example I'm most familiar with. To illustrate the primary definition, the AMP index is a measure of the success of one company relative to a set of peers in the mobile phone industry. It's the average of four market shares: mobile phone units, smartphone units, revenues and operating profits.
This chart shows the shift in AMP index values for the competitors whose data is public and which make up the vast majority of units sold:
The reversal of fortunes, though not complete, is clearly evident. Motorola and Sony-Ericsson, two of the brands that were a significant part of the mobile phone landscape for more than a decade, have ceased to exist as independent companies. A third, LG, is likely to follow. Nokia, the most successful phone vendor for the decade of the 2000's is in severe distress at this time, valued barely above book. RIM, a pioneer, is priced below book value and HTC, another pioneer is also looking for a way to remain relevant.
But we have to appreciate that as these valuations evaporated, the market grew both in value and in volume. The overall spending on phones has never been higher. The total profits captured is also growing. By any standard, smartphones are a booming business. Queues form for the latest versions, there are supply constraints and media coverage is almost universal.
We also have to appreciate that the Nokia that is faltering today was itself disruptive when it gained its prominence. In the 1990s the mobile phone market was dominated by Motorola, then by Ericsson. Nokia was a relative latecomer and succeeded by being better in some regards (e.g. the ease of use of text messaging on its phones) but also by being asymmetric. Using logistics and a portfolio approach to the market allowed it to build scale while maintaining margins. Process innovation led to component shortages for competitors and allowed Nokia to build massive distribution. It also allowed it to invest in software which gave it a unique selling point for several years.
Looking into the even more distant past, the mobile phone market has seen several waves of disruption. Going from analog to digital was such a turnover. The companies which were successful with analog (mainly Motorola which supplied not just handsets but infrastructure) were sidelined when global digital standards took root. Integrated European vendors dominated a period when 2G GSM was becoming predominant. Isolated pockets of integrated innovation like iMode in Japan also had mini-booms but were swamped by standardization and the Galapagos syndrome.
And let's not forget that mobile itself has been disruptive to fixed line telephony. Looking at all telecom, the transitions from fixed to mobile, analog to digital and most recently feature-based to computing-based platforms have all been disruptive, bringing a new set of companies to lead while incumbents fretted.
It should also be noted that these changes are happening more rapidly. The chart above has a five year period. The change from analog to digital took longer. Over 10 years since its inception analog was still dominant. If we look how long it took for mobile to take consumption away from fixed, that process is still ongoing, several decades later. The speed is so slow that some countries have skipped over fixed networks altogether.
With software-defined devices and cloud-based distributed computing the changes will become even more rapid. Even though the user base is expanding to cover nearly the entire global population, the replacement rate of devices means that change in the tools and services people use are limited by supply rather than demand. Supply-based innovation or "the new manufacturing" will probably be the dominance-defining asymmetry of the next decade.
The disruption of mobile phones that Apple has foisted on the world through iOS has caused it to reach a point where it dwarves the values of other companies, not just in the sectors it competes, but in all sectors. Some suggest that Apple is an anomaly and does not reflect the economy. To truly understand the state of the economy, they say, means to subtract Apple from it. But I feel this is exactly wrong. Apple is, through the iPhone and iOS ecosystems, defining this era. Just like Microsoft defined an era of increased productivity through the creation of the "knowledge worker", or like GM re-defined transportation and the notion of the brand in the 50's, or like IBM re-defined business process efficiency with automation in the 60's and 70's, these companies were not anomalies of their era. They were the eras. They were the locomotives of growth that taught other companies how to operate and the contemporary managers how to manage.
Companies that study Apple today will benefit by understanding how it re-wrote the rules. The anomaly is the norm. The exception is the rule. The times they are indeed a-changin'.
Finally, to put disruption in a historical perspective. I wrote a retrospective on the history of the telegraph as a parable of how disruption could be interpreted to have happened even a century ago. What I hope to do now is to show how, given this set of spectacles, we can see how the fate of nations was determined, in part at least, by the ability of leadership to accommodate disruption.
The case of growth or limits to that growth, the question of integration vs. modularity and the evolution of value chains all have application for regulators, policy makers and political leaders.
The dialogue on this topic will begin in Amsterdam on April 13th 2012, at Asymconf. I look forward to seeing you there.
---
Notes:
This is the material accompanying the first case discussion at Asymconf. Participants are encouraged to read it before the show.
The global mobile OS market shares for Q4 shows a continuing (but diminished) leading share.
At the end of last year Android's unit share reached 51% which is down from about 57% during the third quarter. iOS reached 23%, followed by Symbian at 12%, RIM at 9%, Bada at 2.4%, Windows Phone at 1.6% and Other at 1%.
When seen on a year/year basis Android gained 18 points of share in Q4 while Symbian lost 18 points. iOS gained 6 points of share and RIM lost 6 points. Bada gained 2.5 points and Windows lost 1.5 points.
This symmetry can also be observed in another set of data. Published in The Guardian Kantar Worldpanel ComTech data shows the OS share changes for January on a year/year basis for a select set of countries.
Android share gains do seem to be mirrored by Symbian share losses on a country-level.
This should be most interesting to Nokia and Microsoft as both have a lot riding on Windows Phone replacing Symbian sales. If there should be a recovery in the fortunes of these companies, it would seem that their strategies should focus primarily on stemming and then reversing the losses to Android.
Microsoft's strategy of increasing the cost structure for Android through IP licensing is certainly part of this picture but it's a slow process to turn that disincentive for Android into a large incentive for Windows Phone.
Indeed, the speed with which Android handsets can be developed seems to be a key value of that operating system and one for which Microsoft does not have a good answer. Nokia is now one year into its commitment to the Microsoft platform and it has a very limited portfolio to show for it (and limited sales as well.) As a result, Nokia's Symbian business evaporated very rapidly. More rapidly than the company anticipated.
The dilemma for other vendors may well be how long will it take for them to develop a replacement for their Android portfolio in Windows Phone.
The opportunity cost of this switch is subtle and insidious but may be the root of why we don't see a stampede toward Microsoft. Conversely, Android contract-free, implement-at-will availability may be its greatest selling point.
Apple retained its top rank in profitability and regained the top spot in mobile phone revenues.
The relative shares of revenues and profits are shown below:
Individually, Apple's share of units, revenues and profits is chronicled below:
Apple reached 75% of profit share, nearly 40% of revenue share and 9% of units share.
Apple and Samsung combined for about 91% of profits with RIM third at 3.7%, HTC fourth at 3.0% and Nokia last at 1.8% of a $15 billion total for the quarter.
In terms of revenues, Apple had 39% to Samsung's 25%. Third was Nokia with 12.6% and fourth RIM at 8%. HTC only managed 5.5%, Motorola 4%, LG 3.3% and Sony Ericsson 2.7%.
In a previous series of articles we discussed the capital Apple expends on equipment, real estate, leasehold improvements and data centers. Cost structure analysis reveals subtle shifts in strategy and the CapEx analysis demonstrates Apple's increasing integration into its supplier network and integration into the distribution and service infrastructure that sustains its ecosystems.
Another form of investing (spending now, reaping benefits later) is the spending on research and development (R&D). Let’s have a look at Apple’s R&D expenses by quarter since Q1/2006.
Apples R&D expenses as percentage of sales have been declining from almost 4% to close to 2% in the last six years as shown in the following chart:
While Apple's absolute R&D expenses have grown at an annual rate of 33% they have not kept up with the far higher sales growth rate. Apple's current rate of R&D expenditure is compared to a peer group [1] below.
Apple's R&D/sales ratio is between Dell and HP, companies which do not develop their own software or hardware.
Beside the absolute, relative to sales and relative to peers, another perspective is to measure relative growth. The following chart represents shows the 5 year average growth of R&D expenses and on the y-axis the size of last 12 months R&D expenses as a multiple of Apple's R&D costs [2].
Acer's R&D expenses for example are almost non-existent compared to Apple, but have grown almost 100% per year while Microsoft’s last 12 months R&D expenses are almost 4x that of Apple's and have only grown slightly over the past five years. Google's R&D costs have grown at a similar rate compared to Apple, but remained double those of Apple’s throughout the last five years.
Finally, we should look at the payoff from R&D spending over the last five years. R&D growth should result in margin improvement, but does it? The following chart shows the relationship between spending (size of bubble), margin improvement (x-axis) and sales growth (y-axis).
Of our sample, only three companies have achieved sales growth AND simultaneous margin improvement over the last five years. But while Microsoft and Dell have achieved sales growth and margin improvement slightly above zero, Apple has improved its bottom line by 13 percentage points and its top line by an average rate of 45%.
In spite of Microsoft's, Google and Nokia's massive R&D growth, their returns from that investment have been meagre to negative in terms of margin and only Google showed appreciable sales growth.
Discussion
R&D expenditures on a stand-alone basis, in absolute or relative terms, do not correlate with disruptive growth. Essentially, you cannot buy innovation.
In fact, sometimes it's nearly free. Most startups spend less on R&D than large companies do on stationery and yet the bulk of wealth creation has come from these tiny companies. The challenge is, in fact, that if you have resources you find ways of spending them (the quaint American cliche of 'cash burning a hole in your pocket'). The temptation is always there to fund a new initiative which bright people can always envision.
Leadership in innovation is not the courage to spend but the courage to focus.
“Focus is about saying 'No'. And the result of that focus is going to be some really great products where the total is much greater than the sum of the parts.”, Steve Jobs (1997)
[1] Our set of peer companies as shown in previous posts but excluding LG, Lenovo and Motorola Mobility due to lack of data, but including Sony Ericsson and Nokia’s mobile phone division Devices & Services.
[2] In this post “year” and “last 12 months” refers to the time frame from Q4/(year-1) year to Q3/year due to lack of published data regarding Q4/2011. Five year data runs from Q3/2006-Q3/2011.
[3] A note on capitalized R&D: Most of the companies analyzed do not have capitalized R&D costs. Some have small capitalization, but so small that the inclusion would not change the decimal points of percentages. The only significant amount of capitalized R&D appeared in Amazon's earnings releases: capitalized R&D cost were USD 100 million in Q3/2011. The amortization of theses costs in included in Amazon's EBIT (Operating imcome).
Yesterday's post described the history of personal computing platforms over the past 37 years. It showed a distinct shifting of "eras" between traditional personal computing and the emergent mobile computing represented by device-based platforms.
Underlying these lives (and deaths) of platforms were the growth (and decline) of fortunes of companies and people. I hoped that by observing these patterns insight could be gained into the conditions for success or failure.
The following graph shows the companies which were predominant (in the top five ranking by shipments[1]) during each year of the industry's history and the volumes they were able to obtain during that period. I also added Nokia and RIM as examples of the challengers coming from mobile devices.
It's a difficult graph to interpret. The pattern I observed was that most companies were not able to sustain presence in the top five ranking for long. Indeed, regardless of having one's own platform or being a licensee, companies seemed to fade reliably. Some were acquired, some sold their operations but there is a distinct impermanence to their prosperity.
To sharpen this perspective of longevity I indexed each company to the point when they entered the "prosperity zone" and measured their staying power within it. The following graph shows these indexed lives.
Apart from Apple, IBM remained in the business the longest (24 years). Compaq was second with 20 years before being bought by HP. HP and Dell are still operating after 15 years, having tied Atari and Commodore. After these ancients, the upstarts Nokia and RIM are struggling to remain relevant after 10 to 12 years.
Then there are the transients like Packard-Bell/NEC, Toshiba, Radio Shack and Fujitsu which lasted less than 10 years. The newest PC companies are all from China or Taiwan: Acer, Asus and Lenovo. Their longevity cannot be called yet though Acer seems to be in decline. Lenovo, which took over IBM's brands continues to grow. However, as yesterday's post showed, without diversification into devices, pure PC makers are likely to fade.
But besides this interesting history lesson, there is a deeper, unsettling observation. The scale of these periods of prosperity is far shorter than the average person's career. Indeed, the entire time span of the study is 35 years, about the time an average person will be employed. All the companies failed to maintain prosperity over this time frame.
These are a small sample, flawed by showing only hardware units, but I consider it a proxy for the overall technology market. Software-only or services companies have had no better records.
The implications for company managers and workers is profound. Chances are that the business you work for will not prosper for more than a decade and will reward you for an even shorter period. Similarly, as witnessed by the P/E ratios, investors have given up on this industry as one with any quality of earnings.
There is no "rule" that this has to be so. The high mortality rate and short longevity of technology companies is a consequence of a failure to manage innovation and disruption. Apple may be an exception--one I think worth studying. Though not always prosperous, it has managed to survive, being the only company from the early era of personal computing to still be operating in the industry. Indeed, it's now the most prosperous. Maybe it's a fluke, but I rather think it's due to an ability to re-define itself as the market shifts. Its essential quality being an ability to disrupt itself.
And if we think about it this way, ultimately, longevity is more important than prosperity. Without patience there is nothing but chance determining prosperity. The fate of more than company finances rests in the balance.
Notes:
Apple did not maintain a position in the top 5 throughout this period but is shown as a benchmark as it remained in the same business throughout this period.
Data on Q4 performance is starting to trickle in. Last week Motorola, as part of a profit warning, revealed their Q4 smartphone shipments were 5.3 million. RIM had reported 14.1 million units (quarter ending November). HTC has also warned that their shipments of smartphones (and tablets) totaled 10 million. Samsung provided guidance on overall sales but since they don't report data on smartphone (or phone) sales, the estimates are ranging between 32 and 35 million.
Many have forecast Apple's performance but there are many other companies which are not easily estimated (Sony Ericsson, LG, Nokia, ZTE, Others.) But rather than dwelling on the specific quarter, we can make some long-range estimates of performance based on the historic data.
One method I use is to look at patterns of growth. Growth is the first derivative of market performance and it sometimes shows patterns which the performance itself does not. Consider the following chart showing the growth pattern for RIM.
The blue line shows the absolute year-on-year quarterly growth based on reported numbers of smartphones shipped. I've also shown the growth "relative to market" which is unit growth with market growth subtracted. This orange line represents how much faster (or slower) the company is growing relative to the market. If the orange line is above zero, the company gained share. If it's below zero, it lost share.
I also overlaid the performance of the share price (right scale).
Now compare that with another long-term incumbent in the smartphone market, Nokia.
Bearing in mind that the scales are identical, Nokia's relative performance has been negative since early 2008. Persistent negative smartphone performance relative to market growth causes persistent loss in share price.
What about other, more recent competitors?
HTC is not a recent entrant in smartphones, and has gone through a phase of growth with Windows Mobile in the 2000's. This is its pattern of growth (and its share price).
Keeping the scale for growth consistent with the other companies leads to a bit of clipping but the pattern of rise and fall also seems correlated to share price performance.
Finally, the following is the same analysis applied Apple.
Again, keeping the growth scale consistent leads to some clipping, but the pattern remains observable.
What seems to be rewarded to various degrees is consistency in growth of smartphones for companies which are primarily engaged in the market. However, failure to grow is punished with severe share price declines.
Being able to forecast smartphone growth seems to be useful, at least in the time frame of one or two years.
Here are the highlights from RIM's latest quarter:
14.1 million BlackBerry smartphones shipped, 13 million sold through
150k PlayBook shipped with sell-through slightly higher. 800k PlayBooks shipped so far.
BlackBerry subscriber base up to 75 million
High growth cited for U.K., France, South Africa, Mexico and Argentina, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. RIM is the #1 smartphone vendor in the Latin America and Caribbean region. Sales outside the US, UK and Canada were 61% of revenues. US is now 20% of sales, UK 11%.
Hardware growth outside the US was 56%
There are 630 carriers
50k apps in App World with 5 million downloads per day
Forecasting 11 to 12 million smartphones next quarter
Given the channel fill with a new product, the device business was marginal at best. The company obtained -1% growth y/y in units but 31% sequential growth from a transitional quarter. The average selling price (inclusive of service revenues) is $354 and about $280 excluding service revenues. I estimate that operating margins have dropped to about 11%. Not a good story, but one we have been warned to expect.
But a crucial new twist to the story is that RIM announced that they don't expect new BlackBerry 10 devices until late next year. That came as a surprise and the stock sold off significantly, valuing the company at well below book value.
Stepping back, the biggest surprise is that the company seems to have had no plan for sustaining itself.
Let me explain.
If you go back to 2005 or so the world of smartphones was a mix of modular OSs and integrated platforms, much as it is today. Not unlike Android today, Windows Mobile was successful in licensing to dozens of vendors who in turn released hundreds of products. Symbian also was licensed but most volumes came from Nokia and they held the lion's share. Then there was the BlackBerry integrated solution which worked smoothly and had devoted fans who upgraded every chance they had and operators who were joyous at the new ARPU. There was also PalmOS as offered by PalmSource trying to be a "third horse" and unseat stodgy old Microsoft.
It was into that fray that both Apple and Google jumped. Google acquired Android in 2005 and Apple was busy polishing a version of OS X that would became iOS. In three and two years respectively these platforms would be in the market.
Regardless of the actions of rivals, all competitors must have faced the same questions in 2005: As technology was changing rapidly and as they all had access to component roadmaps, what is the best technology approach to this market? Should they embrace certain innovations to sustain their business trajectory? RIM had a tightly integrated software, hardware and service offering. What could make it better? Nokia was also basing its products on a more loosely integrated offering (nominally it was modular, but only just). It saw the writing on the wall and began developing a Linux variant (Maemo) as a potential candidate to replace Symbian. Microsoft was basing its solution of a modular approach. Windows CE was ok as a kernel but they had layers on top which were optimized around stylus-based user experiences (analogous to mouse actions). Could it take on a rich computing experience?
There were many experience candidates. Stylus, keypad, keyboard all had adherents. There was a lot of hesitation. After the iPhone launched with capacitive (finger) touch, resetting user expectations, it still took a year for many of the vendors to re-consider their technology plans. The weakest changed first.
Microsoft felt the pain quickest. They also had the least to lose since revenues from Windows Mobile were paltry. By 2008 internally they turned 90 degrees. They embarked on re-building their user experience and orphaning the Windows Mobile ecosystem and many of the vendor relationships they had built. Palm dropped PalmOS and built WebOS internally quite quickly. They licensed Windows Mobile as a stop-gap. Around the same time Nokia doubled down on Maemo and joined with Intel to form MeeGo. They did not orphan Symbian though and kept trying to adapt it to the new experiences and input methods.
But RIM did nothing. Almost nothing. They were the healthiest competitor. They felt no pain from iPhone's entry. The platform they had built was still growing and they were tweaking it constantly. There were always improvements to point to but fundamentally the code was limited. It was very difficult to adapt it to touch input and the first attempts at a touch UI were embarrassing. But there were no signs of a new platform that reflected the Unix-like competition.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, Unix-like operating systems were having their revenge. To a computer scientist the future of mobile computing would mirror that of personal computing in terms of architecture. The foundations of the early smartphones were built on constraints that were disappearing while being unable to accommodate new input methods. In other words, the early efforts were optimized around those constraints and sub-optimal for rich user experiences. They had to be. There were limited processors, memories and screens and battery life.
It turned out that all the early mobile operating systems were unsuitable for the advances in technology that came after 2007. Companies which were able to adapt or embrace Unix-like operating systems in a mobile context gained the ability to grow with the new input methods. The sooner they "pulled the trigger" on the shift, the better off they were. This is in fact what enabled entrants to gain footholds. Entrants entered with Unix-like OSs straight away while incumbents had to justify changing and the more successful they were the harder it was to justify changing.
RIM had trouble justifying this change. It waited until 2010 to finally acquire the QNX asset that would offer them a stronger software foundation. It still had to adapt this acquisition and it looks like it won't be done until at least 2012, seven years after they should have started. And this should be seen as a sustaining technological change. A new OS is not a disruptive technology to what is already a mobile computer.
However, delays like these can be fatal. We see the impact on Microsoft who was earliest to push the reset button in 2008. It still took two years to rebuild Windows Mobile into Windows Phone and is now still struggling to regain lost share (less than 2% today). We see the impact on Nokia which was unable to affect a transition to MeeGo due to a litany of issues and had to throw in the towel on self-determination. We see the impact on Palm which lost its independence as WebOS was a bit too little too late.
These companies had the right technical strategies but suffered from execution and business architecture issues. RIM is years late in embracing what appears to be a sustaining improvement.
But whenever you see what appears to be a coordinated effort by companies to fail simultaneously you have to ask if the change they struggle with is really sustaining or disruptive. The pattern makes me suspicious that what RIM, Microsoft, Palm and Nokia faced was more than a failure to embrace a sustaining improvement. I suspect that the failure is evidence of tectonic shifting of business models.
Here is a discussion of the changes since the last analysis:
Sony Ericsson was valued through its acquisition by Sony. We did not have a way to value the enterprise before as it was not traded independently. Last June I estimated a 14x multiple on its trailing twelve months' profits and got $3.0 billion. Since then half the company changed hands for about €1.05 thus yielding a total company value of $2.8 billion. The enterprise value should be therefore slightly lower but I'll stick with the current transaction value as the EV.
Motorola Mobility has entered into an agreement to be acquired by Google for $12.5 billion by Google. The company's enterprise value jumped as a result to about $8.6 billion.
RIM's share price collapsed and it's now also trading at an EV of about 7.3 billion (Yahoo finance).
Nokia's price has also dropped and it now has an EV of about $13 billion (Yahoo finance).
HTC recently dropped significantly in price and is now worth about $15 billion EV. (Note that pricing of its equities is subject to suspended trading due to drop limits).
LG's phone business is still losing money and it's still difficult to value. In November it was revealed that the company was seeking to raise $890 million in capital to fund new initiatives including smartphones. The share price fell by 14%. In June I suggested a nominal value for the phone business of $10 billion. I think that's very generous and with recent events I would place that value at $9 billion today.
Samsung's fortunes have increased. In June I applied a 14x multiple to their trailing 12 months' operating earnings. Given overall discounting of the sector I applied a multiple of 13 today. That yields a business value of $78 billion. Interestingly, that is larger than the value of all other competitors apart from Apple. That also makes it six times more valuable than Nokia.
Apple's cash and cash equivalents and investments grew by about $12 billion and were worth about $82 billion as of October.
In summary, in June Apple's cash was about 53% of the sum of competing phone vendor enterprise values. Today it's about 61%. Excluding Samsung, Apple could buy the industry and still have $25 billion left over. This makes the claim that "Apple could buy the industry" even more believable.
This analysis is mainly academic. It does not imply that any such transaction will take place. As the purchase of Motorola shows, control has a premium and individual buyers may be less "rational" than markets. What it does show however is that the entire industry is in a state of crisis. Valuations for phone companies are collapsing and two major brands (Motorola and Sony Ericsson) are being absorbed and could disappear.
At the same time entrants are arriving with completely different business models. Amazon, Facebook, Baidu, Alibaba are intent on selling phones or platforms to be valued as enablers for asymmetric business models rather than as phones. One could argue that what Apple itself sells is more than hardware and that its value-add "on top" of hardware is increasing. This is a sign of commoditization. Certainly the voice business is well beyond that point but it now appears that even the smartphone business is already in an advanced state of value compression.
All the while the overall market is growing. I had separately looked at the profit pool and concluded that the brands are suffering. Summing up the votes from stock markets, the sentiment is even worse. 2012 is looking more and more as a year of inevitable and dramatic industry change.
There is finally enough information to try to give an estimate of the smartphone market as a subset of the overall phone market.
The chart to the left shows the overall picture.
To sum up: The smartphone market has now reached over 30% of shipments. Non-smart devices are at 69% of total. The individual phone platform shares are as follows:
Android (and Android-like): 17.6%
iOS (iPhone only) 4.4%
Nokia Symbian: 4.3%
BlackBerry: 2.76%
Bada: 1%
Windows Phone 0.5%
The past quarter was the first where there is evidence of significant non-seasonal decline in incumbent platforms. Both RIM and Symbian saw two sequential drops in volume. The iPhone had a seasonal (or, more accurately, transitional) decline. Windows Phone had a very modest increase in share from 1.3% to 1.7% share though this is well below a margin of error in the estimate.
Android (and Android-like) shipments ballooned to nearly 70 million but sell-through could be about 10 million less. Nearly one in five phones sold is now powered by an Android variant. A remarkable story since the share was zero less than three years ago
Of the vendors involved, here is the division of share:
Samsung achieved 26% share, nearly swapping share with Nokia over a single year. Nokia reached below 14% while Apple maintained above 14% but down from 19% the quarter prior. HTC overtook RIM with 11% vs. 9%. Sony Ericsson is around 6% and Motorola probably slipped below LG with 4% vs perhaps 5% respectively.
The absolute performance of shipments by vendor and platform follows:
I maintained the historic distinction between integrated (green) and modular (brown) OS strategies to show how the value chain evolved. As Nokia swaps its share to a licensed Windows Phone the share held by integrated vendors is likely to shrink even further.
Does this mean it's the end of integration? Or even more importantly, as I have previously suggested the link, is this the end of innovation in the mobile phone market?
It would appear that with 30% smartphone share, the vast majority of phone vendors are ready to abandon any ambition to obtaining extraordinary profits from mobile devices.[1] Apart from Apple, there seems to be complete capitulation to being manipulated by platform orchestrators with unpredictable or opaque intentions.
The thesis of perpetual innovation rules this out. While new input methods offer a clue that visual interaction and the platforms that depend on it are not permanent, the fact remains that cloud computing and the coupling of additional intelligence that comes with it will enable new points of integration and the positioning of these points on new jobs to be done.
Stay tuned as we discuss the future of mobile computing. The best is yet to come.
Notes:
By extraordinary I mean margins above what a component assembler and distributor would be able to obtain--see the PC industry.
A few years ago, around the middle of the last decade, the mobile phone market was characterized by the rivalry between a few established vendors. These were Nokia, Samsung, LG, Motorola and Sony Ericsson. These incumbent companies had a broad portfolio of devices including smartphones and feature phones and basic phones. Many also sold networking equipment and were deeply engaged with their customers, network operators.
There was also a set of entrants who offered only smartphones. They were quirky. HTC was a a prominent "ODM" or original design manufacturer who built phones for companies who added their brands and sold and supported the product. HTC made phones and PDAs for operator brands and for some large PC companies. It also began to sell phones under its own brand. RIM was also offering products that had evolved from pagers into email appliances with added voice capabilities. But RIM's products were not very good as phones. Voice was so poorly integrated that many people carried both a BlackBerry and a voice phone. Then there was Palm with something called a Treo which promised many things but did not quite deliver.
In 2007 something happened which changed the industry. It took a few years to even realize it was happening but by the time it was obvious, it had changed to such a degree that huge companies found themselves in financial distress. This chart illustrates the effect.
In a few short years the rivalry between incumbent handset makers has evolved into a rivalry between mobile platforms where the incumbents were caught in an increasingly unprofitable role of hardware integrators. Motorola is now being absorbed by a search company. Sony Ericsson is being absorbed into a consumer electronics company. Nokia is going through a potentially existential crisis and even abandoned its platform. Acquisition talk surrounds LG's phone efforts. Samsung is prosperous but sill at the mercy of its software suppliers. Even the entrants are starting to feel beleaguered. RIM, the oldest pure play smartphone company is trading below book value and has regressed in value to 2004 levels. Palm evaporated. A view into the changes is the rankings of the companies in terms of volumes, sales and profit as shown below.
How did large, powerful, smart companies let this happen?
It happened despite having a clear, front row view of the transition of the industry from mobile voice to mobile computing. The shift in the basis of competition from "connecting people" to "connecting people to data" ended up being a classic disruptive trap. Many will argue that it was the failing of individual managers. Perhaps, but how did they conspire to fail simultaneously?
When you see disruption happening, it's natural to seek out a cause, a pivotal magical "force" or event that enabled the weak to humble the strong--the proverbial sling that enabled David to defeat Goliath.
My hypothesis is that The Primary Cause for the shift of profits from Incumbents to Entrants has been the disruptive impact of a new input method. I illustrated this with the help of the January 2007 slide presented by Steve Jobs at the launch of iPhone.
Each new input method led to not just a disruption but new platforms and new business models. Each new "sling" victimized a set of historic companies. Mainframe and minicomputers, consumer electronics giants and now telecoms.
Just like David's sling, these technologies are not powerful in and of themselves, but rather, the way they are used makes them unpredictably sinister. The context of using capacitive touch on a handheld device rather than on a table-top makes it disruptive. Coupling it with high-speed mobile networks and powerful but efficient microprocessors made it into a force.
That is now ancient history. The consequences and repercussions are still being felt and weighed, but the smart money should be focusing on the next shift. From the time frame in the diagram above, it's clear that the cycle time between "Revolutionary User Interfaces" is shrinking. It's been five years since multi-touch. Is the next "RUI" already here? Is Siri the next RUI?
There are many things going for it:
It's not good enough
There are many smart people who are disappointed by it
Competitors are dismissive
It does not need a traditional, expensive smartphone to run but it uses a combination of local and cloud computing to solve the user's problem.
It is, in a word, asymmetric.
My disruptive hypothesis for Siri is that it shifts the competition from platforms positioned on a device to a "coupled" super-platform dependent on broadband and infrastructural computing.
Just after collecting enough data and observing patterns in it that give us clarity, It looks like things are about to change all over again.
